PhilGeis
Forum Replies Created
-
Pharma - and worse - the damned things are so hard to culture, it takes forever to figure out the problem (discolor, clouding, slime) is microbial.
-
Moderate halophiles can grow up to 20% salt and halophiles are among the contaminants of many household and industrial products - minerals/salts themselves are often the source.
Pharma makes a good point - they are heat sensitive. Boil it and seal it - or take your chances. -
20% is not prohibitive to microbial growth.
-
That means very little - it’s a poor preservative
-
Leucidal is not a very effective preservative.
-
Just use the paddle media every time you formulate. These are very poor for products but not so poor with water.
Decide upfront what result will cause you to toss the product you made. -
Mine is industrial experience - recirculating water systems with ozone and heat. Maybe contact the manufacturer - they might be ozonating.
Preservatives are intended to protect consumers in use - not correct for poor GMP’s. Even a “good” preservative system can be overwhelmed. Our systems are weak - not accomplishing in a month what a disinfectant does in 10 minutes or less. They have to be weak or they’d not be safe in use.
-
Microbial content of water is dynamic. Cepacia, ~ the most common cause of recall, can grow to millions in a day in distilled water. Water is the most problematic ingredients - you don’t know micro quality at formulation until days after the product is made and packaged.
-
If the peptides are actually synthesized by the plant - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23252967/.
Why are you using it if it causes such angst?
-
Wet wipes have no rinsing step like shampoos - so are leave on.
-
For antimicrobial efficacy in wash?
-
Think phenoxy is not needed with DMDM Hydantoin and Parabens - the classic combination is a formaldehyde releaser and parabens but add EDTA.,
-
MIT as supplied with CMIT at total ~5ppm in rinse off products is safe in use and continues to be primary in that context.
-
Any observation for 40C? 50C is pretty high.
-
Doubt it pharma - lauric might but the longer chain fatty acids do not and would more likely undergo beta oxidation as substrate for the pseudomonads.
-
Don’t waste your money on either - supplier marketing hype. Efficacy would be phenoxyethanol.
-
Both are wrong.
Where effective Phenoxyethanol is usually fine at 5000 ppm and the other two are pretty useless in any application. Pseudomonads have plenty of esterases. -
Are you in US?
-
No control over making (quality?) of your base soap? What is source of base?
With above, not only does “Premium” seems unsupportable - but how do you ensure the safety of your product? -
Geogard 221 is not natural and as you found is not that great of a preservative system in any context. The best preservative systems is prob. a formaldehyde releaser, parabens and EDTA.
Natural in the literal sense - there is nothing to recommend.
“Natural” in the COSMOS/Ecocert marketing sense - you formula dependent. -
Methyl - 0.2%.
In theory, Gram negatives are the risk for shampoos so DMDM Hydantoin alone with EDTA would seem to be enough. In practice, combination with another increases protection vs. Gram negative adaptation and is a much better system. -
Your formulating with another company’s product, apparently a drug product.
Don’t think you listed those ingredients.
Are you planning to sell this? -
No - that’s way too much
-
Dump it. Please use GMP
-
With benzoate